STATE v. MYERS

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-171.

The State, Respondent, v. LouShonda Myers, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Filed April 19, 2017.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

LouShonda Myers, of Georgetown, pro se.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Brian T. Petrano , both of Columbia, for Respondent.


THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCARC.

PER CURIAM.

LouShonda Myers appeals an order from the circuit court dismissing her pleading titled "Administrative Notice/Coram Nobis." Myers argues the circuit court erred in dismissing her motion and denied her due process. We construe the "Administrative Notice/Coram Nobis" document as a post-trial motion because Myers stated the purpose of the "Administrative Notice/Coram Nobis" was to "correct the judgment and/or order of . . . contempt." The circuit court did not err in dismissing this motion. First, we note the doctrine of "Coram Nobis" was abolished in South Carolina. See Rule 60(b), SCRCP ("Writs of coram nobis, coram vobis, audita querela, and bills of review and bills in the nature of a bill of review, are abolished, and the procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgment shall be by motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent action."). Furthermore, any post-trial motion must be made within ten days from the imposition of a sentence. See Rule 29(a), SCRCrimP ("[P]ost-trial motions shall be made within ten (10) days after the imposition of the sentence."). Accordingly, we affirm1 the circuit court's dismissal of Myers's motion because it was not timely filed following the September 26, 2014 order of contempt. See State v. Warren, 392 S.C. 235, 239, 708 S.E.2d 234, 236 (Ct. App. 2011) ("The [circuit] court does not retain authority to entertain a motion which is not made within ten days of sentencing.").

AFFIRMED.

LOCKEMY, C.J., and GEATHERS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

FootNotes


1. We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases